Many women think DV act means money, means moolah and they will get what they ask for. The reality is far from that. There are umpteen cases where the woman get next to nothing, especially when the husband is working in the un-organised sector !! Ultimately such women end up paying more lawyer’s fee than anything else !
It is also possible that some of these women have come up with exaggerated claims and so are unable to prove things in court !
Here is a case where a woman files DV and gets just 5000 p.m. for 3 kids. Husband seems to be in the unorganised sector and wife has NO proof of what she claims as his income !!
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02
Crl. A NO. 47/15
Smt Kusum Kataria
w/o Sh Manish Kataria
r/o 3517/B, Block 93B
First Floor, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi. ……..APPELLANT
- Mr Manish Kataria
s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria
Sh Khem Chand Kataria
Smt Krishna Kataria
w/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria
s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria
all resident of 3517/B, Block 93B
Sant Nagar, Burari
DATE OF INSTITUTION :04/07/2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT :16/05/2016
J U D G M E N T
- The present criminal appeal u/s 29 of D V Act has been filed by the present appellant against the order dated 05/05/15 passed by Ms Mona T. Kerketta, Ld MM, Central District, Delhi whereby the Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/ per month as interim maintenance to the children of the parties from the date of filing of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
- Brief facts leading to the present appeal as stated by appellant are that marriage between appellant & respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 21/02/2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Three children were born out of this wed lock. It is stated by the appellant that after few days of marriage, respondent no, 1 along with his family members started treating the appellant with cruelty. The appellant filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act along with an application u/s 23 of D V Act. Vide order dated 05/05/15, Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/ per month as interim maintenance to the children from the date of filing of the petition.
- Being aggrieved with the order of Ld Trial Court, appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
- a) That Ld Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
- b) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents of the property no. 3517/B, Block 93B, First Floor, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi in favour of respondent no. 1. That Ld Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that respondent no 1 is also paying the home loan as per affidavit given by respondent no. 1 in the court.
- c) That the Ld Trial Court has failed to consider that the PAN card mentioned by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit, is not in the name of respondent no. 1 but the same is in the name of Sh Chet Ram.
- d) That Ld Trial Court has not considered the fact that respondent no 1 is the owner of of two properties, one is shared household, which is in the name of respondent no 1 and there is another property, which is owned by respondent no 1 under the home loan, and respondent no 3 who is claiming to be the owner of the shared household did not place on record any document in this regard.
- e) That Ld Trial Court has completely ignored the fact that respondent no 1 in his income affidavit has mentioned that statements of all bank is annexed herewith , but respondent no 1 has not filed any bank statement.
- With these and similar grounds, appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order .
- I have heard arguments from Ms Alka Singh, Ld counsel for the appellant as well as from Sh A. K. Singh, Ld counsel for respondents.
- I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for parties and gone through the trial court record.
- Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of Ld Trial Court dated 05/057/15, whereby Ld Trial Court has granted composite interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/ to the appellant and her children.
- It is admitted facts of parties that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent no. 1 and three children were born out of this wed lock. From the trial court record, it is clear that appellant/complainant is earning Rs.15,000/ per month, whereas Respondent no. 1 has claimed to be earning Rs.6,000/ per month. From the documents placed on record, it is clear that respondent no. 1 is IIT electrical diploma holder, hence the Ld Trial Court has rightly not accepted the version of the respondent no. 1 of earning Rs.6,000/ per month. Ld Trial Court has taken the monthly income of respondent no. 1 as per Minimum Wages Act of skilled person at Rs.11,000/ per month, which in my opinion is the correct procedure. Thus, same does not suffer from any infirmity. On the other hand, appellant has Cr. A NO. 47/15 Page 4 of 5 pages stated that respondent no. 1 owns two properties but she has not filed on record any document to substantiate her claim. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ld Trial Court has rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/ to the children after considering the monthly income of respondent no. 1/husband as Rs.11,000/ per month. Even otherwise, this is an interim maintenance order and final order of maintenance is yet to be passed after evidence will be led by the parties.
- In view of above observations, the appeal as filed by the appellant is dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
- Trial court record be sent back with the copy of the order.
- File of appeal be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16th of May, 2016.
( SHAIL JAIN )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting